- Mar 14, 2021
- 330
- 158
- 39
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I would ask that ALL parties refrain from going down political rabbit holes and try to focus on the broader ethical questions involved.
Upvote
0
Seriously, I have written multiple paragraphs about the fight language of politicians, the relevant topic here, and you decide to focus on this offhand final comment dozens of pages back and ignore everything I said? That's funny.Nobody except you, that is -- tail end of post #163.
Are you kidding me? When they rioted after Harris said, "They will not stop. They cannot stop" but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register? Or when Waters show up and stirs it up with her words, but rioters don't specifically mention to the media that what Waters said registered, that this didn't add to the situation.You bring up other politicians regarding their remarks on the riots but no one at the riots said they were doing it in a politicians name. It would be different if someone during an interview said they were rioting because a politician said to.
The insurrection on the other hand had people live streaming themselves where they are heard saying things like they are there because Trump ordered them to and that they expected Trump to be with them. Now the level of intent for this outcome is in the air but the fact remains people thought they were following their leaders orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?
We are getting off topic with nitpicking about how many were involved. Terrorist acts might only have one person involved that was following the ideology of a leader. The people who were involved clearly thought Trump ordered them to attack the capital. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?
Works for me.I would ask that ALL parties refrain from going down political rabbit holes and try to focus on the broader ethical questions involved.
Are you kidding me? When they rioted after Harris said, "They will not stop. They cannot stop" but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register? Or when Waters show up and stirs it up with her words, but rioters don't specifically mention to the media that what Waters said registered, that this didn't add to the situation.
Wow, interesting way to parse it. So a few nuts jobs - and it is a few out of the counts we have read of up to hundreds of thousands at the rally - actually enter the Capitol Building and even fewer say stuff the media, like "Trump should be President" or whatever they said, this means the nut jobs are "doing this in Trump's name"?
So we listen to nut jobs, and not just watch what was said and what they do afterward...like with the year of rioting?
That's one perspective.
I would ask that ALL parties refrain from going down political rabbit holes and try to focus on the broader ethical questions involved.
Seriously, I have written multiple paragraphs about the fight language of politicians, the relevant topic here, and you decide to focus on this offhand final comment dozens of pages back and ignore everything I said? That's funny.
I just told you. When the rubber hits the road, it's the courts. Now how about you give an answer yourself rather than spraying umpteen options all over my tablet. I'm eager to hear it.
Do you mean to say that you would trust a judge's personal opinion about what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't?
Would you want to have some form of punishment enforced upon those that spoke in a way any particular judge might find unacceptable ?
I consider all speech to be acceptable.
If you wish to ask me a question I will gladly answer it.
Wow. That is the longest post I have ever seen, and I just don't have time to do it justice at the moment.
I will hit a few highlights, I guess.
Nobody used a sports analogy for the fight language. Perplexed by that statement you make. I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense. Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.
The language was used in the EXACT SAME context.
Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.
I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone. That's fine. And irrelevant. He spouted a lot of opinions, and was certainly bombastic and obnoxious about it. So noted.
That said, there is always another election coming along. It won't be Trump, but it will be someone to the right of Biden/Harris, in my estimation, which certainly isn't hard to find.
I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone.
I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense.
You are attempting to deflect into other areas, such as the use of the words, "I'll kill you" (something that should be said by anyone anywhere, in my view), implying that it is fine if you are joking around. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding language politicians routinely use about fighting for issues that are important to them.
Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.
Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.
The language was used in the EXACT SAME context.
Why don't you admit my point that politicians use "fight for this and that" language all the time, no differently than Trump did - and sometimes even more vociferously?
So we listen to nut jobs, and not just watch what was said and what they do afterward...like with the year of rioting?
That's one perspective.
Are you kidding me? When they rioted after Harris said, "They will not stop. They cannot stop" but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register? Or when Waters show up and stirs it up with her words, but rioters don't specifically mention to the media that what Waters said registered, that this didn't add to the situation.
but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register
The general consciousness is that the riots would have happened if those politicians said nothing, meaning their words are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Not sure what you mean, people have actually tried to use that they were following Trumps orders as a defense after the fact. The amount of people is irrelevant for the question at hand anyway. It is indisputable that people in the insurrection felt that they were following Trumps orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?
Asked and answered. Only if the Leader exercises control over the actors and utilizes duress. Did not happen.The general consciousness is that the riots would have happened if those politicians said nothing, meaning their words are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Not sure what you mean, people have actually tried to use that they were following Trumps orders as a defense after the fact. The amount of people is irrelevant for the question at hand anyway. It is indisputable that people in the insurrection felt that they were following Trumps orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?
The "Blame Trump" specious defense will not fly.
"Lawyers have not yet sought dismissal of charges or acquittal during a trial based on the idea that Trump incited their clients, instead making the claim as part of efforts to spare them from pretrial detention.
No defendant will be able to avoid criminal culpability by saying they were incited by Trump, said Jay Town, who served as the top federal prosecutor in Birmingham, Alabama, during the Trump administration.
“If anything, it is an admission to criminal conduct,” said Town, now the general counsel of cybersecurity firm Gray Analytics. “While this ineffective tactic may help with headlines, it will not help the fate of any defendant.”"
Do you mean to say that you would trust a judge's personal opinion about what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't? Would you want to have some form of punishment enforced upon those that spoke in a way any particular judge might find unacceptable ? I certainly don't find that an acceptable way to regulate speech but then again, unlike actions that are directly harmful to others, I consider all speech to be acceptable. If you wish to ask me a question I will gladly answer it. I mentioned only a few options hoping to elicit a bit more detail than just "the courts" on how to go about speech regulation. It seems to me that there would need to be some consistent guidelines as to what constituted unacceptable.
Asked and answered. Only if the Leader exercises control over the actors and utilizes duress. Did not happen.
A speech can be unwise, can be taken in a number of ways, and words should be measured (not Trump's strong point), but what people do with a political speech is on them and in their own control unless they are controlled by a dictator, a la Hitler.
Asked and answered. Only if the Leader exercises control over the actors and utilizes duress. Did not happen.
A speech can be unwise, can be taken in a number of ways, and words should be measured (not Trump's strong point), but what people do with a political speech is on them and in their own control unless they are controlled by a dictator, a la Hitler.
What about a leader that says something bad will happen if action isn't done?
A nazi leader might say something like "something needs to be done about the minorities or they will take over". A follower would take that as a call to action and commit violence for example. The follower is responsible for their own actions but is the leader responsible for putting that idea out there?